It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
UNIty in diVERSity-scerir
BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems
interesting.http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
BM:
(1) The universe is more complex than current physics
makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison,
(2) Our ability to comprehend things is quite limited.
But these two together imply that is quite possible
that we live in a simulation.
In a n-dimensional Hilbert space,
The only laws of matter are thosewhich our minds must fabricate,and the only
laws of mindare fabricated for it by matter.- James Clerk Maxwell
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 8/4/2013 12:12 AM, scerir wrote:
The only laws of matter are those
which our minds must
fabricate,
and the only laws of
mind
are fabricated for it
by matter.
- James Clerk Maxwell
Good quote. Do
(Brent wrote)
Neils Bohr had a horseshoe nailed over the door to his office.
When a graduate student asked him if he believed the supersition
that this would bring good luck, Bohr said, I'm told it works
whether you believe in it or not.
--
Once, at the afternoon tea, in the Institute
Niels Bohr is famously quoted as saying: 'Everything we call real is made of
things that
cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked
you, you
haven't understood it yet.”
---
Aage Bohr tried to explain something about te quantum domain and (perhaps)
Norman Samish
This scenario that you are discussing reminds me
of this interview with Julian Barbour where
he proposes that time is an illusion.
This reminds me of a good paper by Carlo Rovelli
(about quantum gravity, GR, space-time, etc.)
http://ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf in which he
suggests
Is it worthwhile to consider a life as the sum of
experiences along a given track of the world line,
or can we borrow from Feynman and view life as
a sum over histories?
Richard Miller
Borges wrote something about it, a sort of
MWI, or Many Times Interpretation, or
many zigzagging
From: Norman Samish
This reminds me of my problems trying to understand
the collapsing quantum wave function.
Einstein was very interested in collapsing wave functions
(see Solvay Congr. 1927) and developed many experiments
about it (well before the EPR paper). One of these
experiments was
In the briefcase of Straycat
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/straycat_md
you can find the 'Travis Norsen's boxes paper' folder,
which has two very interesting papers (pdf) about 'collapse',
and 'alternative' collapse (factorizable superpositions),
one written by Travis, one by Shimony.
One of
From: rmiller
New Scientist has a very interesting article [...]
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007
Nicolas Gisin, 'How come the Correlations'.
Note that what Gisin is saying (link above)
was, more or less, already written by John Bell.
It has been argued that quantum mechanics
is not
[Brian Holtz]
If two spacetime-disconnected regions are causally disconnected (such that
none of the events in each has any possibility of influence on any events in
the other), then it seems pure artifice to say the regions are in the same
world. You could as easily say that all possible events
Ben Goertzel:
but this doesn't mean induction is unformalizable,
it just means that the formalization of cognitive-science
induction in terms of algorithmic information theory
(rather than experience-grounded semantics) is
flawed...
Imo, induction only works when the complexity
of the
Any ideas on the 3rd person aspect?
Are you assuming that that commutability
or non-commutativity of observables
is fixed a priori?
Stephen
There are problems about consistency between
measurements on the same system
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107151
and related
Hal:
My tentative opinion is that it does make sense to ascribe Platonic
existence to such things but I am interested to hear other people's
thoughts.
It is, perhaps, interesting, that 'time', for Plato,
is 'moving according to number'. That is to say ...
equations, if I understand it
Godfrey writes:
[...] at the basis of QM there are amplitudes
that add, multiply and square. Notice the absence
of things! It is the things that ain't there!!!
Not sure I understand. But the usual rule of addition
of probabilities does not apply to quantum probabilities.
This does not mean
Godfrey:
My point, if I can break it down a bit,
is that the amplitudes correspond,
not to things but to processes
and that what the amplitudes let you
compute are relative probabilities for
the occurrences of such processes.
Maybe. Amplitudes of (whatever) waves
satisfy linear
Godfrey:
There is no energy flux directly associated with
wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or
mechanical waves) but is a probability density
and a probability flux associated with the square
of linear functionals of the wave-function.
The question, at this point, should be:
Godfrey:
'MWI + Projection postulates should reproduce
regular Copenhagenian QM since MWI is basically
QM - Projection Postulates!'
Imagine a superposition like this
|'spin_z' +1 |'detector' +1 +
|'spin_z' -1 |'detector' -1
It describes a superposition of spin up/down
states, and the
Godfrey:
I am not sure I can give you a decent answer to your
query [...]
There are papers by Mark Rubin showing (perhaps)
that in the Schroedinger picture, information
on splitting worlds must be inferred from
*the history* of the combined system. While
in the Heisenberg picture this
From: Ben Goertzel
[...] but still the records
could be kept somewhere,
and one can ask what would happen
if the records were kept somewhere else [...]
Not sure, but the quote below - about the information
'in principle' - might be helpful.
The superposition of amplitudes is only valid if
From: Ben Goertzel
The paradox is as follows:
One does the EPR thing of creating two particles
with opposite spin. [...]
More or less, it is the experiment by Birgit Dopfer
(pdf on this page, unfortunately just in German)
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/publications/thesis/
From: James N Rose
Conservation as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of many worlds.
Are conservation principles only defined in
closed systems? Is a 'world' a closed system?
There is, i.e., a no-deleting theorem (similar
to the no-cloning
Wei Dai:
If we consider our observable universe as a computation, it's rather atypical
in that it doesn't seem to make use of the erase operation (or other any
operation that irreversibly erases information). The second law of
thermodynamics is a consequence of this. In order to forget
Norman Samish:
A while back Peter Jones and Brent Meeker independently pointed out
the illogicality of my non-acceptance of both MWI AND wave-collapse
as explanations of quantum weirdness.
# Since the word 'weirdness' is in the subject line, may I ask the
following?
Has the 'axiom of choice' (I
Therefore from the first person's perspective
the laws of quantum mechanics are violated.
[Saibal]
This paper (below)might be relevant.
-s.
"Whose Knowledge?"
- N. David Mermin
Sir
Rudolph Peierls, in a reply to John Bell's last critique
of the state of our understanding of quantum
George Levy
This is interesting. Is it possible to transmit information from the
future to the past? If yes, how would this information be restricted?
This is a very difficult issue, as you can see (example below).
A single particle [the example is discussed in references 4, 2, 1]
at time
.
Locality and determinism are linked (are faces of the same coin).
-scerir
Saibal Mitra
Now there exists a class of universes,
with a very low measure, in which the
laws of physics are such that I am
guaranteed to win.
There is also the interesting class of TSQT.
Quantum theory is time symmetric as long as it can be
described by the evolution of a state vector
unprovable in a given system
requires, also, that the system is consistent. But how is a
computer supposed to know that?
Does the universe know Goedel's theorems?
- Scerir
determining the shape of the new cosmos must resemble
those of its parent, rather than being picked at random.
Granted this, after a while most universes in the mega-cosmos will
cluster around certain apparently arbitrary values - the kind that produce
observers like us. wrote Damien Broderick.
- Scerir
not,
be known, or even be knowable.).
- scerir
. Read with much pleasure.
A very interesting lecture, about Babel languages dreams, et cetera,
was this one, http://www.italynet.com/columbia/dream.htm
by Umberto Eco.
- Serafino Cerulli-Irelli (scerir)
[Once a physicist, at Rome Un., now just a farmer]
on any model of how quantum correlations arise and apply to any
jamming mechanism.
Thanks,
- Scerir
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [The Monadology, 64-66] wrote:
But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines
in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the
difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine
art and ours. And the Author
Karl Svozil, Randomness Undecidability in
Physics, World Scientific, 1993, [chapters 10.2 - 10.5]
also speaks about the simulaton argument.
It is not unreasonable - he says - to speculate about the
logico-algebraic structure of automaton universes (universes
computer generated).
If there
So it seems to me that this is another prediction which we can make
based on the all-universe principle (AUP): that natural law may well
have rare exceptions, and that once we begin exploring realms and
configurations that are unlikely to have occured naturally, we may
find
[scerir]
I think that MWI + decoherence = Copenhagen Interpretation.
[Bruno]
Not at all. It is a widespread misuse of decoherence.
Perhaps, but there is also a good (imo) use of decoherence,
i.e. in papers by Wheeler, Tegmark, etc.
Actually decoherence justifies completely the *appearance
There is a sense in which the past is not unique and determined.
[..] the single past model is quite well-supported by science [.]
It seems that the quantum measurement traces a certain (consistent)
history, takes a part in the very formation of the past (of that history).
John
By the term block multiverse I mean a reality in which everything
MUST happen, in some timeline or universe. This sounds a lot like
predestination to me.
Scott W. Somerville, Esq.
The argument that the relativistic space-time named (after H. Weyl) block
universe eliminates the possibility of
Hal
You can also have a block universe in QM with the many-world
interpretation. It has a more complicated geometric structure but
philosophically it is deterministic, with the same issues regarding
changes, free will, etc.
I'm not an Everettista, anyway let us try. Alice has photon 1,
Saibal Mitra
This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that.
If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have
concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere
Title: Re: Some books on category and topos theory
Tim May wrote:
Whether knots are the key to physics, I can't say. [...]
Knots are the key to (quantum) entanglement.
s.
Tim May:
I don't have a comprehensive theory of time,
but I am very fond of causal time.
Sometimes we read papers saying there is now
experimental evidence that quantum phenomena
are a-causal or non-causal or out-of-time.
See, in example, these recent papers
Yes, this is similar to the Wigner's friend thought-experiment.
Wigner later (1983) changed opinion and wrote
that decoherence forbids superposition of states like
c1 |s 1 |friend 1 + c2 |s 2 |friend 2
After that in QM the conscious being - i.e. the friend
who tells that he
J. Mazer [about Wigner and consciousness]
Did Wigner only believe this until his change of opinion in 1983, or did he
continue to think this way afterwards?
Wigner wrote (Nov. 18, 1978) ...
... as far as living organism of any complexity are concerned, the same
initial state hardly can be
J. Mazer:
But can decoherence really forbid macroscopic superpositions in principle,
or only in practice?
Well, experiments have been done many times, showing
the effect of decoherence on (macroscopic) quantum superpositions
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/8/3/1
George
Levy:
5) Is
complementarity anthropically necessary?
I may be wrong but it seems to me that
complementarity
is nothing more, and nothing less than a
consequence
of the finiteness of (quantum) information.
It seems also that the complementarity principle
is
a "smooth"
Dear S.P.K.,
try this one, there is a collection of
possible and impossible machines, classical
versus quantic.
s.
Quantum Information Theory - an Invitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101061
Authors: R. F. Werner
Comments: 51 pages, 12 Figures, LaTeX+dvips. Will appear in a volume
Quantum
Eric Hawthorne
There are more mysteries to be solved here, clearly.
For sure :-)
As you know Santa Claus is nothing more and
nothing less than St. Nicholas of Myra (Lycia),
http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35
whose relics are in Bari (Italy), under the name
of San Nicola di Bari.
[Tim May, in another thread]
Any finite system, which of course all systems are, can have all of its
quantum mechanics calculations done with finite-dimensional vector
spaces. The full-blown machinery of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert
space is nice to have, in the same way that Fourier analysis
[Joao Leao]
What we lack is a genuinely quantum model of
computation that could be mathematically tractable as the Turing or Post
models and can account for entanglement in all its glory.
As far as I know you can describe certain classes of entanglement
by means of Borromean rings, which are
[scerir]
As far as I know you can describe certain classes of entanglement
by means of Borromean rings, which are beautiful and sometimes
also unpredictable.
I realize that Kauffman already wrote something ...
http://www.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/QETE.pdf
Tim May:
(Again, I currently have no pet theory of what Reality is. But I'm
happy to be building a base of tools to be able to more intelligently
comment later. Having a pet theory is not so important.)
The best definition, imo, is:
Reality is that which,
when you stop believing in it,
does
[George Levy]
Here is a (white) hared brained idea
on how to build a time machine.
You need a very good recording device
and a Quantum Suicide (QS) machine.
For a simpler device see:http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/chan-evid.html
[Tim May]
I am quite strongly persuaded that "many pasts for a
If, without in any way disturbing a system,
we can predict with certainty the value of
a physical quantity, there exists an element
of reality corresponding to this physical
quantity, wrote once EPR.
(Of course the strong term here is *predict*,
because prediction is based on something,
a theory,
Hal Finney
If, from a set of axioms and rules of inference, we can produce a
valid proof of a theorem, then the theorem is true, within that
axiomatic system.
I'd suggest that this notion of provability is analogous to the
reality of physics. Provable theorems are what we know, within
a
Bruno Marchal:
In Bohm's theory there is no collapse of the wave.
No collapse of the wave-function takes place upon measurement.
One must obtain, nevertheless, the reduced wave-function of the
system. Once a specific result has been obtained in a measurement,
only that term (of the global,
The Everett (?) theory of this section will simply be the pilot-wave
theory without trajectories. Thus instantaneous classical configurations
x are supposed to exist, and to be distributed in the comparison class of
possible worlds with probability |psi|^2. But no pairing of configurations
at
Joao wrote:
This not quite the case. In the Bohmian interpretation the collapse
is, in fact, determined by the non-local quantum potential pretty
much as the outcome of a critical phase transition which suppresses
all the branches of the superposition but the one that matches the
measured
Joao:
I don't believe that there is ANY question that QM is non-local! This is
the outcome of 30 years of experiments with entangled multiparticle
states. I also think that non-locality is pretty well defined in this
context (the way Bell put it) and we know what implications it has
in the
Hal:
Philosophically the real question is not why QM is non-local, because
there is no a priori reason the universe should be local.
Nature is earlier than man. And man is earlier than natural science.
Thus sometimes (Einstein, essentially) we refuse even the possibility
of non-locality.
The
Federico:
The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us
that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws.
There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself
which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there are
Any reason this list does not have a reply-to set to the mailing list
address?
Better push the reply to all?
Btw, I wrote:
Now the question seems (to me) to be this one. What about the density
matrix of the people A in the ***world*** A, representing some knowledge
about the ***world*** B?
Federico:
I'm agree that informations are always subjective, but a physical or
matematical model should not be too. And perhaps the paradox I propose
is a four-order one. The problem in fact is that all the conclusions
we could think are consequence of the hypotesis of applying the
David wrote:
Furthermore if I witness a crash where someone dies can I assume that
the victim will survive in their own world so far as at least one
quantum branch of survivability seems possible?
David Kwinter
In case, after the crash, there is somebody who is really dying
(and who does
- Measure on the dying subject, at the 'right' moment, that is to
say when he is 'really' dying, the projection operator on the state
'psi';
Of course this state 'psi' would be a superposition of the kind
1/sqrt2 (|live + |dead)
or, better,
1/sqrt2 (|live + exp(i phase)|dead)
[me]
Principles of World Theory say, more or less, that: [...]
[Bruno]
Very nice. Except perhaps that it is the principle of the
Old World Theory, implicit in Aristotle
and Leibniz, where all the worlds are accessible from each other.
It is formalised by the modal logic S5. [...]
I'll do my
the paper is this one, I suppose
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302179
it was expected that the vacuum behaves
as a noisy channel
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301065
and in general entanglements are sensible
to Lorentzian boosts (but not much)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302095
We are told that string theory needs 11 dimensions - could it be, for
example, that there is another dimension in which the entangled particles
are adjacent to each other?
Norman
Of course here we are speaking of spooky actions as possible
*physical* effects, involving, or not, superluminal
Norman Samish:
This is unsatisfying.
Yes. It is also called the conspiracy
between QM and SR.
I would like to hear speculations on non-locality.
There are many in QM. I mean many non-localities.
In example the famous 'collapse', the 'Aharonov-Bohm' effect
(also with neutral particles),
forgot the links :-)
Antoine Suarez http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0311004
Asher Peres http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310010
David Barrett-Lennard
Isn't non-locality simply associated with
the ability for the future to affect the past?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
But I may be wrong. Because, at this level, as
pointed out long
David Barrett-Lennard
According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
and everything looks normal.
Yes, but how small?
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501011
Both the protective and the weak-value experiments
associated with this idea are now being tried out...
-Joao
Yes and they are testing the famous 3-quantum-boxes
paradox http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310091
with related negative probabilities!
Can a
Joao Leao:
The association between non-locality and retrocausality
(for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
negation! [...]
Bell's theorem shows that, given the hidden variable lambda,
the result of the experiment
Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a
limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody
disagree?
Norman
The less anything is,
the less we know it:
how invisible,
how unintelligible a thing,
then, is this Nothing!
John Donne
The
This list started with fresh new ideas of ingenious, well trained
brains. During the years it slips more and more into scholastic
formalistic physical science. It is a pity.
John Mikes
Maybe.
But physical science can offer more than the old riddles.
I.e.:
- branching space-times (Belnap,
George Levy
At a deeper level, we could ask the question, why is the principle of
causality so important?
What appears to be more frightening: a clocklike universe which
is totally governed by deterministic laws, or a lawless universe
which is totally unpredictable and random? Asked once
From: Eric Hawthorne
One of the issues is the computational complexity of running all the
possible i.e. definable programs to create an informational multiverse
out of which consistent, metric, regular, observable info-universes
emerge. If computation takes energy (as it undeniably does
Are probabilities always and necessarily positive-definite?
I'm asking this because there is a thread, started by Dirac
and Feynman, saying the only difference between the classical
and quantum cases is that in the former we assume the probabilities
are positive-definite.
Thus, speaking of
From: Jesse Mazer
Would this experimental result actually be predicted by the quantum
formalism, though? It sounds like they had a setup similar to the
double-slit experiment and found a small amount of interference even when
they measured which hole the particle traveled through, but I
Saibal Mitra fwded
It may be a question of interpretations of interpretations of QM,
however on the basis of the New Scientist article, I don't believe
Afshar have shown a problem with the complementarity principle.
I agree. But imagine the usual two-slit set-up. And this
unusual screen, to
From: John M
I think your e-mails arrived blank
because you did not write into it.
No no. It is a fuzzy effect. Due to the
signature/attachment, my Outlook,
my Norton Antivirus, and something else.
But I can read now the body of the (blank) message
in the window properties of the message --
http://www.analogsf.com/0409/altview2.shtml
just Cramer talking about Afshar and MWI
and his transactional interpretation
(but why transactions occur exactly in
the right place and moment is difficult
to realize)
s.
From: Stathis Papaioannou
...an infinite amount of subjective time can be squeezed
into the last few moments of a collapsing universe
This reminds me of a strange story
I've learned long time ago.
A dynamical system which passes
through a succession of states,
at constant time
From: John Collins
Essentially Ashfar's experiment involves fooling himself
(and perhaps a few others) with a new single-path photon
thoery, then undermning the new theory, whcih was not quantum
mechanics..
The orthodox QM says that if we have the usual two-slit,
a which way detector, and
From: Fred Chen
Can there be a transition region where
both aspects are observable?
It is difficult to observe a one-particle pattern
http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp
But if you are interested in things like whether there is
an experimental smooth, Yin-Yang type :-),
From: Joao Leao
Our access to mathematical archetypes is in
this sense a map to help us make our way back
to the garden, as Joni Mitchell (that great
Platonist) would put it!
If I remember well - but I studied all that 35
years ago - Aristotle called all that 'hylomorphism',
from hule =
From: Patrick Leahy
NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally *define*
different branches of the wave function by the property of being fully
decoherent. Hence reference to micro-branches or micro-histories for
cases where you *can* get interference.
Do you agree we
Bruno Marchal:
To be clear I have only proved that IF COMP is taken seriously enough
THEN the appearance of a pre-existing physical world, including its
stability, lawfulness ... MUST BE derivable from the relation between
numbers. This is done. Then I got results confirming in part that comp
can
Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds
-Nicolas Gisin
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440
Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about
all
possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440
Evgenii writes:
Could you please tell me if this paper will help me for example to earn
more money? Or, according to this paper, does it make sense even try to
earn more money?
Did you see The Sting (1973, Paul Newman and Robert Redford)?
I think that
Jesse: I think that would be the alternative to spacetime substantivalism known
as relationalism (discussed in some of the papers I linked to), it's
certainly possible as well, I think if we had a complete theory of quantum
gravity it might naturally favor one or the other (the way the
A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
Evgenii
H. Kragh (Dirac: a Scientific Biography, Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called collapse (reduction of waves packet).
Dirac said that it is
agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind
the collapse, and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would
be followed, there was the free-will of the human observer.
-scerir
I don't think this does justice to Born's views.
He was not a realist about the wave function
nor
( There is a little discussion about Vic's paper in https://www.facebook.
com/sabine.hossenfelder)
scerir
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
True randomness is not computable by (at least one) definition of
random.
But a good pseudo-random number generator would not be
detectable for many steps (SFMT period = 2^216091).
-Brent
That reminds me of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Therefore, it is not contrary to
divine providence
I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf
Messaggio originale
Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Data: 19/08/2015 8.40
A: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics
See also Arnold here
See also Arnold here
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
Messaggio originale
Da: meeke...@verizon.net
Data: 19/08/2015 2.17
A: undisclosed-recipients:;
Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics
I like Wenmackers essay too.
1 - 100 of 280 matches
Mail list logo
